Legal Commentary

The Sweet Voice Of Reason

Now that Obama has wrapped up the nomination and gotten a fist bump from his wife to boot, let's review a little incident that occurred over the past few weeks and has already been blogged about by others. I'm always late to the dance, but I don't care because I had to feed my dog Fido and clean out the stables. But now I've got my new boots and pressed jeans on and I'm here, so start the music and let's dance.

This little flare-up involved members of my church who support Barack Obama's candidacy. "Roman Catholics for Obama 08" quoted the words of Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput (a favorite of this blogger), but not accurately. Chaput, writing last month on his diocese's web site and in First Things, wanted to set the record straight. He started by setting forth his history as a campaign worker for Robert Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, and explained his flawed reasoning for supporting the latter.

Carter had one serious strike against him. The U.S. Supreme Court had legalized abortion on demand in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, and Carter the candidate waffled about restricting it. At the time, I knew Carter was wrong in his views about Roe and soft toward permissive abortion. But even as a priest, I justified working for him because he wasn?t aggressively ?pro-choice.? True, he held a bad position on a vital issue, but I believed he was right on so many more of the ?Catholic? issues than his opponent seemed to be. The moral calculus looked easy. I thought we could remedy the abortion problem after Carter was safely returned to office.

Carter lost his bid for re-election, but even with an avowedly prolife Ronald Reagan as president, the belligerence, dishonesty, and inflexibility of the pro-choice lobby has stymied almost every effort to protect unborn human life since.

In the years after the Carter loss, I began to notice that very few of the people, including Catholics, who claimed to be ?personally opposed? to abortion really did anything about it. Nor did they intend to. For most, their personal opposition was little more than pious hand-wringing and a convenient excuse?exactly as it is today. In fact, I can?t name any pro-choice Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life?not one. Some talk about it, and some may mean well, but there?s very little action. In the United States in 2008, abortion is an acceptable form of homicide. And it will remain that way until Catholics force their political parties and elected officials to act differently.

Thus, he exposes the fallacy of his thinking that he could rationalize a candidate's weak position on abortion by also thinking that (a) the candidate's stance on other issues outweighs this one weak position on a critical issue and (b) you can "remedy the problem" once the "weak" candidate is elected.

Archbishop Chaput clarified the reason for the history lesson.

Why do I mention this now? Earlier this spring, a group called ?Roman Catholics for Obama ?08? quoted my own published words in the following way:

So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can?t, and I won?t. But I do know some serious Catholics? people whom I admire?who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken, but at least they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don?t keep quiet about it; they don?t give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite?not because of?their pro-choice views.

What?s interesting about this quotation?which is accurate but incomplete?is the wording that was left out. The very next sentences in the article of mine they selected, which Roman Catholics for Obama neglected to quote, run as follows:

But [Catholics who support pro-choice candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a ?proportionate? reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It?s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life?which we most certainly will. If we?re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.

On their website, Roman Catholics for Obama stress that:

After faithful thought and prayer, we have arrived at the conclusion that Senator Obama is the candidate whose views are most compatible with the Catholic outlook, and we will vote for him because of that?and because of his other outstanding qualities?despite our disagreements with him in specific areas.

I?m familiar with this reasoning. It sounds a lot like me thirty years ago. And thirty years later, we still have about a million abortions a year. Maybe Roman Catholics for Obama will do a better job at influencing their candidate. It could happen. And I sincerely hope it does, since Planned Parenthood of the Chicago area, as recently as February 2008, noted that Senator Barack Obama ?has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record both in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate.?

Changing the views of ?pro-choice? candidates takes a lot more than verbal gymnastics, good alibis, and pious talk about ?personal opposition? to killing unborn children. I?m sure Roman Catholics for Obama know that, and I wish them good luck. They?ll need it.

Intellectual dishonesty is as much a part of the practice of modern politics as it is of the practice of modern law. Spin is all that matters. Taking the Archbishop's words out of context and making them appear to support a position that he does not support is par for the course. If Obama is light on abortion, and the Roman Catholic Church's position of opposition to abortion is clear-cut, just muddy the water by distorting the meaning of the words of a conservative spokesperson for the church, such as Archbishop Chaput, by making it appear that he thinks it's acceptable for them to support Obama, notwithstanding Obama's hard-core, consistent support of abortion rights.

Of course, this kind of intellectual dishonesty isn't confined to Obama supporters, nor even to politics. As a lawyer for over 34 years, I guarantee you of that fact. Nevertheless, it's tiresome.

At least Roman Catholics for Obama acknowledged the Archbishop's clarification. As discussed in the latest issue of National Catholic Register, however, they're sticking to their guns, and to their candidate. They also appeared to be bereft of any intellectually honest response to the Archbishop (at least among those quoted by the Register, perhaps there were others) other than to appear to give up entirely on the abortion issue because "the deck's stacked against us." Many of the members of the group attacked Archbishop Chaput personally.

Other members of the group complained that Archbishop Chaput sounded too much like a Republican: "Bishops that take up the Republican talking points are doing it out of political convenience," wrote one member, "I don?t for one moment believe they are sincere."

"Alas," wrote another member, "I?m afraid that when Archbishop Chaput speaks, he speaks not for the hierarchy or the magisterium, but for Karl Rove."

"I would be curious as to the archbishop?s citation to the definition of 'proportionate reason' as something we will have to 'explain' to anyone in the next life other than God." a member wrote, "I haven?t heard his excellency articulate a similar standard for support of the invasion of Iraq."

Ah, the sound of hot wind whipping through an intellectual landscape barren of thought but long on vitriol. The handy "ad hominem" always serves the commenter when the intellectual argument is inconveniently not quite within one's grasp. I'm surprised not one of these good Catholics called the Archbishop a pedophile.

Well, as the Archbishop wishes them, so will I: Good luck. You're going to need it.

Get ready, because this is just the start of the "real campaign." Before it's over, this little incident will pale in comparison to the really ugly stuff. And don't think it will all come from the left.

Full post as published by Counseling Kevin on June 04, 2008 (boomark / email).